All errors should be reported to

Friday, March 15, 2019

Veni, vidi, veto

President Donald John Trump issued his first veto, which is unlikely to be overridden because the truth is, Congress likes playing wall politics.

As long as the wall is unbuilt, it is a possibility that people in the multi-billion-dollar illegal alien business want to stop.

They send millions to congressmen as campaign donations. Once the wall is up, donations will fall.

President Trump promised a wall which unleashed a torrent of screams of racist and other deplorable names from the establishment. CATR -- the Council of American-Trump Relations -- declared the name-calling Trumpophobic.

Passage of the resolution was another exercise in futility by the disloyal opposition that showed how impotent they are. Where are those articles of impeachment? Mueller find any collusion yet? How's that emoluments lawsuit going?

CNBC reported, "Democrats plan to vote to override Trump’s veto on March 26, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a written statement Friday. When the House voted on it previously, 245 members supported it, well short of the 285 needed for two-thirds support. (The House currently only has 432 members due to three vacancies.)"

Actually, they would need 288 votes to override but the point is well made.

Most presidential vetoes are sustained. Bush 43 issued 12 and was overridden four times. Barack Hussein Obama issued 12 and was overridden once.

Only Andrew Johnson had a losing record. He issued 29 vetoes. Only 14 were sustained.

President Trump won this round. Everyone knew he would. You would think that Congress would catch on and not challenge a president unless congressional leaders have the votes to override.

But it gives donors the appearance of usefulness.


  1. I bought the shirt! I don't wear t-shirts. T-shirts are dumb. But this! I just had to buy it.

  2. Gawd, Mittens is a pussy. If he wins in 2012 - which he absolutely should have - no Mr.T now, maybe no Mr. T ever. Thank you for being a pussy, Mittens.

    1. No, Zippy vote frauded his way to a second term, don't ever doubt it.

    2. @edutcher:
      Even if there had been absolute irrefutable unimpeachable evidence of vote fraud before the 2012 election was made official, Mittens would have been the gentleman-pussy he is and stepped aside to allow B Hussein to complete his two terms. In fact, under such circumstances, Mittens would have called us racists for even challenging B Hussein's right to continue as president.

    3. Ed, I gotta go with TK on this one...

  3. Mittens and Lee are my senators unfortunately. I emailed both of the jerks, but Tom Donahue has 70 million bucks he spends on our 535 corrupt leeches. El Chapo(sinola) and Soros just sweeten the pot.

  4. I don't think the bribes (campaign donations) will fall if the wall is built. The donors will just change their focus to some other scam to make money for which they need the Congress critters' help. It doesn't matter if it harms the country or not, as long as they make money. We'll probably just exchange one problem for another. - Elric

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. Yo: some syntax whazzats: in paragraph 5, "Passage of the resolution was another exercise in futility by the disloyal opposition that showed how impotent they are. How are those articles of impeachment ready?" The first part is just a tiny bit clunky, but the last: "How are those articles of impeachment ready?" just does not scan, (to me anyway): Maybe try "How are those articles of impeachment? Ready?" Brevity, to just get over it quickly! Also, but (relatively) minor: "that people in the multi-billion-dollar illegal alien business want to stop" is sort of barely OK but ... not optimal nor up to your usual standard of prose. This would read cleaner: "that people in the multi-billion-dollar illegal alien business would want to stop" to avoid having to end in an added "it;" "that people in the multi-billion-dollar illegal alien business want to stop it." No I am not that guy, I just love your concise prose and this blog post is great and needed, but maybe this lacked the usual proofread on the way to the Friday-night-bloke-down-at-the-Pub persona? Nevermind; as you were. Luv the blog!

    2. Yes. You are correct. Sentence will be reworked. Thanks.

    3. "Yo: some syntax whazzats:"

      And then gives a critique? Is this guy supposed to be an English major or a grammar Nazi or what?

      I believe your readers understood you, and we all make language errors from time to time. And once you hit enter, there it is.

    4. You say po ha

      I say pa ho

      You say who you

      I say hoo doo

      Po ha

      Pa ho

      Who you

      Hoo doo

      Let's call it what it is:

      Nitty picky not so witty sticky.

  6. My Senator sucks. Voted against the wall because he knows he will be re-elected no matter what. Take the chamber of commerce money and screw his constituents. Politicians suck.

    1. Even worse: my senior senator has been a squish for decades, even in local and state politics. Now he is retiring and he votes against the emergency as a way to show his middle finger to Tennessee. Just GO AWAY Lamar.

  7. What I love most is that the same week Beto announces the POTUS goes and snatched up 75% of the word with veto!

  8. Veto yes, Beto no.

    Sporting of Beto to throw his hat in the ring right before St. Patrick's Day, but he should've used his real name - Robert Francis O'Rourke.

  9. Up goes the wall, down go the donations. It's all about the Benjamins.

  10. I came. I saw. I vetoed. Man, that's good.

  11. I suspect we'll see a few more vetoes, this year and next.

    It would be good for the Tea Party to be targeting all the "purple districts", where Dems won with less than 10% (20?) difference, and getting an early conservative Trump Rep prepared to run.

    My feeling is that Trump wants to keep the Wall as an issue, one where he is making some progress (NOT a loser), yet he has not yet won. It's not fully complete; it remains a problem.

    Reps also need to call Dems liar when they say they support border controls, but are against the Wall.
    "Every person voting for this liar is in favor of politicians who lie. Says they're against "open borders", yet votes against a Wall -- their vote shows that their mouths were lying. Whatever you feel about the Wall, or open borders, any who vote for this Dem is supporting a politician who lies."